Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:37:10 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, 'freebsd-arch' <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring in-tree GDB Message-ID: <20151020223710.GI42243@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <5626B4C9.6020307@FreeBSD.org> References: <2678091.es0AGJQ0Ou@ralph.baldwin.cx> <5626B15C.4080408@FreeBSD.org> <5626B4C9.6020307@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:40:25PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote: > Other things to consider is that this increases build time for a tool > that only developers need. Given it is not a drop-in replacement for > gdb, a tool that people have become accustomed to over several decades, > the bar for adding it into the base system should be higher. Build time is wrong goal: end user don't need recompile system. Right way: for general purpose (not embeded system and not kernel developer) system don't need be recompiling. All features and tunuing may be do by sysctl (prefer) or loader tunable. Tracking -STABLE may be done in binary form, may be from private build server. If you talk about recompile system and also talk "install compiler package for system reompile" -- I am remeber badly Linux's time, with incompatible combinations of kernel, userland, libc, compiler, package manager and other hell.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151020223710.GI42243>